DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 06J 421 UD 012 370

AUlhoR Carlson, KennethTITLE Equalizing Educational Opportunity.PUB DATE 7 Apr 7 2NOTE 53p.; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago,Ill., April 7, 1972

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29Bus Transportation; Civil Rights; *Ccifinunity Control;*Compensatory Education; Cultural Enrichment;*Educational Finance; Educationally Disadvantaged;*Equal Education; *Equalization Aid; Financial Needs;Financial Policy; Nondiscriminatory Education; Schooliunds; School Segregation; SJcial Integration;Universal Education

ABSTRACTEducation directly determines lite, liberty, and

happiness for that segment oi the population which can afford bettereducational facilities. For economically and socially disadvantagedpeople, education only perpetuates inequality. Financial inequalityresults in some school districts spanding more money ker student thanother school districts. There is a high positive correlation betweena public school student's socioeconomic status and the amount ofpublic money spent on his/her education. What are needed are newforms of school financing where local financing of education isreplaced by state, and possibly federal, disbursenent of publiceducation funds. However, the essential objective is not to equalizeexpenditures but to equalize opportunity in the form cf compensatoryeducation programs for the disadvantaged, health care fqr pregnantwomen, and Eost-natal instruction in homemaking and baby care.(Author/SB)

1

EQUALIZING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

Kenneth CarlsonRutgers University

Presented at theAmerican Educational Research Association Convention

Chicago April 7, 1972

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY

Introduction

In four years, the United States will celebrate the

200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The

celebrating will signify that we as a nation still subscribe

to the principles enunciated in the Declaration. The first

principle stated therein is that "all Men are created equal,"

wlth equalitylyeing defined as the unalienable righc to life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The celebration should

be marked by an air of embarrassment.

In fifteen years, the United States will celebrate the

200th anniversary of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment

to that document says that no state "shall deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Unless considerable change Woes place between now and 1987,

we shall assedble for the ceremonies in acute discomfort.

Education directly determines life, liberty, and hap-

piness, and it is a government function. But schooling does

not promote equality; it perpetuates inequality. It is the

Great Sieve, and the openings are labeled "economic and

ethnic origin." For those who were born well, schooling is

opportunity; for the rest, it is circumscription. Mt still

profess what our ancestors dreamed, bmt the Revolution only

2

achieved the domestication of oppression.

. when the denial of equality ofopportunity to major segments of thepopuleion and the shallowness ofmany prevailing notions of equalityare weighed against Ameriea's de-clared ideals, the_conclusion canonly be that the LArrericas, experi-ment has been a tragic failure.'

Financial Inequality

There is a school district in Texas which spends $5334

eadh year on each student. There is another district which

spends $264.2

The difference is 2000 per cent. The dollar

disparities between the children of the rich and the chil-

dren of the poor are not usually this great, but they do

have a disheartening consistency. There is the ufban ex-

penditure and there is the suburban expenditure. New York

City spends $1031 per pupil and Scarsdale spends $1626;

Boston spends $655 and Newton spends $842;3 Newark spends

$940 and Millburn spends $1192.4 No wonder James Conant

was once moved to write that "the cantrast in money avail-

able to schools in a wealthy suburb and to the schools in

a large city jolts one's notion of the meaning of equality

of opportunity. 115

There are also rural-suburban and even suburban-

suburban differences. Thus, in Los Angeles County, Beverly

Hills can spend $1232 per pupil while Baldwin Park spends

$5776 And finally, there are the inequalities between

states, where New York spemds an average of $1370 per pupil

and Mississippi spends $521.7

All of the foregoing differences are due to two factors:

wealth and effort. Since the school tax is a property tax,

the town with a lot of highly valued property - commercial,

industrial, or residential - has a plentiful resource on

which to draw for support of its schools. The property value

per pupil in Newark is $20,338, whereas in Millburn it is

$92,856.8 In Baldwin Park there is $3706 in property value

per child, but the value in Beverly Hills is $50,885 . a

ratio of 1 to 13. 9

Effort is the extent to which a town actually draws on

this taxable resource. The tax rate in Newark is $3.69; in

Millburn it is $1.43.10 Similarly, the tax rate in Baldwin

Park is $5.48, compared to $2.38 in Beverly Hills.11

What all of this shows - and it is typical for the na-

tion as a whole - is that poor communities spend less money

per pupil but they make a greater effort to support educa-

tion than do rich communities. As the California Supreme

4

Court pointed out in the Serrano case, °affluent districts

can have their cake and eat it too; they can provide a

high quality education for their children while paying lower

taxes. Poor districts, by contrast, have no cake at a1l."12

The same can be said for states. It should be borne in mind

that taxes hurt the poor more than the rich, because the

poor are already at a subsistence standard of living. More-

over, the property tax is especially regressive because it

is not based on ability to pay.

A further refinement is in order at this point. There

are intra.district disparities in the amount of money spent

on students. The kids in the wealthier neighborhoods of a

school district have more spent on their education than do

the kids in the poorer neighborhoods. Patricia Sexton has

provided a detailed description of this situation as it

obtained in the Detroit school system. 13 Even within a

sdhool, the students in the higher tracks or ability group-

ings have more spent on them than do the students in the

lower tracks. The higher ability students get more materi-

als, more highly paid teachers, etc. Since the students in

the higher tracks tend to be from higher social class fami-

lies,14

the relationship between how much the family has

5

-5-

and how much public money the child gets continues to persist.

In 1967, Federal Judge Skelly Wright in Washington, D.C.,

ruled that tracking was in violation of the 14th Amendment

guarantee of equal protection under the law.15

Money Does Matter

There are many people who acknowledge indisputable fi-

nancial inequalities, but who then go on to say that money

really doesn't matter. The one thing almost all of these

people have in common is money. Some of these people even

spend a lot of their money to send their children to private

schools. Their actions give the lie to their words.

One method by which the educational value of money can

be demonstrated is that employed by Guthrie and his colleagues

in their analyses of the extensive data available on the

schools in Michigan." The Guthrie team examined the rela-

tiondhips among the following variables: socioeconomic

status, school services, academic performance, and success

in later life. Their first set of findings confirms what

has already been established in this paper, namely, that

those wbo got, get. To put it pedantically, there is a high

positive correlation between a public school student's socio-

economic status and the amount of public money spent on her

-6-

education. On this issue, Guthrie et al. conclude that

to be an elementary school child oflower socioeconomic status is to ex-perience an extraordinary probabilityof discriminatory treatment. High-quality school services are providedto children from wealthy homes. Poor-quality school services are providedto children from poor homes.17

The second set of findings reveals another strcng cor-

relation: that between school service components and stu-

dent performance as measured by standardized aptitude and

subject-matter achievement tests. All of the componentr,

are affected by the availability of money, and consequently

they exist to a more favorable degree in rich schools than

in poor ones. Among the components are: student-teacher

ratios; in-service training of teachers; the number of

classes ane courses taught by a teacher; job satisfaction

for teachers; released time for department chairmen; the

services of a school nurse and psychologist; supplementary

teaching materials; library books; newer, less crowded

buildings, with better illuminated halls and rooms and more

sound dampening characteristics; summer school programs;

and special services for students with special needs. All

of these components cor-elate positively with pupil per-

formance, although some may in reality only be proxy mea-

sures of others that are more directly significant. For

7

example, a teacher's verbal ability may be an index of her

general intelligence and imagination in the teaching task.

At any rate, the highest correlations are those that have

to do with teacher characteristics, particularly verbal

ability, teaching experience, job satisfaction, and amount

and type of academic preparation. Thus, there is strong

evidence that schools, and especially teachers, do make

a difference, and teacher quality is to some extent at

least an tdentifiable, a cultivatable, and, most important,

a purchasable commodity.

The last set of positive correlations which the authors

derive has to do with the connection between school perform-

an.le and success in later life. Here it should be noted

that success has a social as well as a personal dimension,

so that society too is a beneficiary of improved education

for 1:he individual. The better educated person is a more

informed and active participant in the political process and

is less likely to engage in criminal activity (or is less

likely to be caught at it).

kiew Forms of Sch( 1 Financing

Given the educational potency of money, what can be done

to insure a more equitable disbursement of public education

funds? Obviously, local financing of education has to be

done away with. This is rapidly coming to pass. State

courts in California, Minnesota, and Dew Jersey, and the

Federal district court in Texas have already found local

financing of education to be in viplation.of the equal pro-

tection clause of the l4th Amendment, as it applies to

both students and taxpayers. A Supreme Court ruling on the

Texas case is expected by September. The outcome is almost

guaranteed, not just because of the pressure of mounting

lower court consensus, but also due to thrusts from the

legislative and executive branches of government. In Hawaii,

of course, the schools have always been state financed. The

Maryland state government has assumed responsibility for

school construction costs, and in North Carolina most of the

teacher salary bill is now picked up by the state.18 Guber-

natorial advisory commissions in New York and Lew Jersey

have within this year recommended that these states take

over almost the entire cost of school financing. Governor

William Milliken of Michigan is attempting to move his

state in the same direction.19 At the Federal level, the

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has

recommended that the states assume "substantially all" of

-9.

the responsibility for financing the schools, 20 and the

President's Commission on School Finance just brought forth

the same recommendation.21 Most of the recommendations f or

a state takeover also contain proposals for more equitable

tax policies, e.g., a uniform state property tax and greater

reliance (*In income taxes and sales taxes.

So the tide is running, and the question now is whether

i'lma? tide can or should be stopped at the state line. The

ar Court will eventually have to address itself to this

since the arguments for state finanoing of education

are even better arguments for Federal financing. As Albert

Shanker has asked, "if inequality is unconstitutional within

a state, need we wait much longer before the doctrine applies

between states as well?"22 In a society as mobile as that

of the United States, it is as patently ridiculous to con-

fine equality of opportunity within state lines as within

municipal boundaries. Furthermore, "there is no justification

for relying purely on state and local taxes to finance

education in a nation .in which the poor states have about

half the per capita income of the rich ones."23

Federal financing of local schools may well contradict

the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states the power

10

-10-

to educate; hcmsver, in recent years the Supreme Court has

consistently chosen the individual rights of the 14th Amend-

ment over the states' rights of the 10th Amendment. So

while Federal school financing may break new ground, it does

so in a well-trampled field.

Here again the Court will be mindful of contemporary

opinion in coming to its decision. Senator George MtGovern

has indicated in a campaign letter that he would like to

see the Federal government assume a greater share of the

costs of education, although how much greater was not

specified. Gcmyrnor Milton Shapp of Pennsylvania has pro-

posed the creation of a National Education Trust Fund, which

could eventually handle all the costs of pulAic education.24

Senator Hubert Humphrey has just echoed the Shapp proposal,

with the recomamndation that the trust fund be used to

finance at least one-third of the nation's education costs.25

To date, the mcst significant support for major Federal in.

volvement in school financing has come from a majority of

the President's own Commission on School Finance. John

Fischer, speaking for that majority, said: "If we really

mean it when we say that every American Child - rather than

ii

every Californian or every Arkansan - is entitled to equal

educational opportunity, we must be prepared to use Federal

means to bring about such equality. 1126

Whither Local Control?

The prospect of state or Federal financing raises anew

the old fear that central funding will result in central

control. The power of the purse is undeniably a first-order

power, and they who possess it cannot be expected to relin-

quish all control of the uses to which their appropriations

are put. Indeed, we should demand that they devise and en-

force minimal standards as a means of protecting students.

It is worth noting that such standards were never applied

to the Ocean Hill-Brownsville experimental program in local

control until after the experiment had terminated, at which

time it was discovered that the reading scores for children

in the district were lower than before the experiment began

and worse than those of other ghetto schools in New York

City. 27The application of standards throughout the course

of the experiement might have prevented or reversed this

trend.

The argument that uniform standards will lead inexorably

-12-

to deadening homogenization is currently being undermined

by the structural and instructional diversity which is

finally surfacing in pdblic school systems, e.g., the New

York City system. The point is that stifling uniformity

is not inevitable, and it can be reversed. The crucial

task is to determine how much uniformity is desirable. In

the case of educational expenditures, there is now a la-

mentable lack of uniformity.

Those who have ordered or who advocate state financing

of the sdhools have been careful not to foreclose local

control. The California Supreme Court, in the Serrano case,

said that "no matter haw the state decides to finance its

system of public education, it can still leave decision-

making power in the hands of local districts." 28 In his

New Jersey decision, Judge Theodore totter wrote that "be-

yond camuon essentials, educational goals should be adjusted

to community needs."29 The President's Commission on School

Finance asserted tIpt "local boards of education should be

given wide latitude, within general state guidelines, to

use resources provided by the state in ways that best meet

their needs and demands." 30 The same sentiments can be in.

yoked for Federal financing.

Ironically, those who oppose centralized financing tend

to assume that local control presently exists and has only

to be preserved. For many school systems, however, local

ntrol is a chimera.

There

The shortage of funds in some districtsactually minimizes local discretion inprogramming and in the ability to com-pete for the services of good teachers.School boards in poor districts cannotopt to institute special services whentheir budgets do not include adequatefunds even for essentials. In thissense local control is illusory. Itis control for the wealthy, not for thepoor.31

have been several attempts to develop school

financing plans which combine a central input for equaliza-

tion purposes and a local input to assure a degree of local

discretion. Existing state and Federal aid formulas are

mostly local input, and the "aid" is parceled out in such

a way that it actually widens the financial gap between

chool districts.32

The newer schemeshave and have-not s

seek to eliminate this farce. Among the most recent of

these have been the Fleischmann Commission report in New

York State and the report of the Governor's Tax Policy Com-

mittee (the Sears Report

ential plan has probably

) in New Jersey. The most influ-

been that worked out by John Coons,

14

-14-

William Clune, and Stephen Sugarman, and which appears in

their book, Private Wealth and Public Education. The au,

thors advance the concept of "power equalization." Under

this plan, the state (or conceivably the Federal government)

would establish maximum and minimum levels of spending per

pupil. Within these limits, a local district can decide

how much it wants to spend, and this decision will trigger

a pre-set property tax rate. For rich school districts,

the revenue generated by this tax rate will be more than is

needed to meet the per pupil expenditures. The surplus will

therefore be turned over to the state (or, again, the Feder-

al government). The revenue resulting from the same tax

rate in a poor district will not be sufficient to satisfy

the desired per pupil expenditure, and the difference will

be supplied by the state (or Federal government). In this

way, per pupil expenditure will continue to be a product of

local decision and effort, but localities will be equalized

in their revenue raising capability. The Citizens Group

named by the California State Board of Education to work out

a means of compliance with the Serrano ruling has just adopt-

ed the power equalizimg plan. 33

15

-15-

Compensatory Education

What should remain in mind is that the essential objec-

tive is not to equalize expenditures but to equalize oppor-

tunity. At this time in United States histary, given the

fact that the rich have their private advantages augmented

with public money, equalizing the distribution of this money

is a straightforward way to equalize opportunity. But we

should not stop there. Equal opportunity can be still more

effectively promoted through the expansion of compensatory

programs for the disadvantaged. Dwight Allen has stated the

case rather succinctly: "equality is a racist notion when

you start with a dual society that is systematically dis-

criminatory on a racial basis." 34 Allen's remark should

be extended to include socioeconomic status as well as race.

In fact, Patricia Sexton may yet prove bD have been prophetic

in a comment she made ten years ago.

In the long run it may turn out thatthe educational problems of low-incomewhites are more stubborn and resistantbD treatment than those of Negroes.The Negro community is becoming awareof its rights and particularly itsright to equal educational opportunity.35

Perhaps it would be well at this point to present the

issue in simplified schematic form as follows.

16

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY TODAY

Home Environment School Environment

Rich 30100010010000DOCCOCK MIDOCCIOCXXXXXIXXX

Poor MOO= XX3OCXX

This represents the present condition of education oppor.

tunity in the United States. Those who propose ehe mere

equalization of per pupil expenditures wcm1d, at best, only

succeed in converting this picture to the following.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AFTEREXPENDITURE EQUALIZATION

Home Environment School Environment

Rich 30000100000DOCCOCK MODOCCICXXXX3XXXX

Poor MODOCK =COCK

The poor child would still be left in a non-competitive posi-

tion due to the relative disadvantagement of his home environ-

ment.

Of what does that disadvantagement consist? Quite often

it consists of hunger, malnourishment, and sickness. It may

consist of brain damage from having eaten peeling paint or

because of vitamin or protein deficiency as early as the pre-

natal period. In the latter respect, it has been said that

17

-17-

"deprived children start life at a disadvantage, social handi-

caps having already been converted to organic defects even

at birth."36 Educational disadvantagement in the home could

result from the absence of a parent or from the inattentive-

ness of economically harried parents. It may simply mean

parents of limited verbal fluency and conversational range

due to the restricted opportunities of their own childhood.

It could also mean the lack of a quiet place to study, or of

books, or of variegated experiences.

There is no mystery about it: the childwho is familiar with books, ideas, con-versation - the ways and means of theintellectual life - before he begins con-sciously to think, has a marked advan-tage. He is at home in the House ofIntellect just as the stableboy is athome among horses or the child of actorson the stage.37

To equalize opportunity means to offset these disad-

vantages. Much more appropriately, it means to prevent them.

In a provocative paper presented at the American Sociological

Association convention last summer, it was contended that the

best way to eradicate the ravages of poverty and guarantee

equal opportunity is income equalization. The authors sug-

gested that society be structured so that "the richest he

controls a disposable income no more than three times greater

-3.8.-

than the poorest he."38 This is the most adequate solution

to the problem which this writer has encountered, but polit-

ically it is pie in the sky.

A preventive strategy which is politically acceptable

is simple vitamin and protein supplementation for undernour-

ished women during pregnancy and lactation. It has been

shown that this can increase the intelligence of the chil-

dren born to these women.39 In general, high quality

medical care should be easily available to the poor at all

times.

A strategy which borders between prevention and com-

pensation is infant education. The Infant Education Center

Project in hilwaukee randomly assigned into two groups the

new-born children of forty mothers whose I.Q.s were less

than 70. The control group was given no special treatment.

Each child in the experimental group was well-fed and bathed

and stimulated. In addition, the mothers of these children

were instructed in homemaking and baby care. In time, the

experimental group children attained an average I.Q. of 125,

whereas the average I.Q. for the control group children was

95, 40 Needless to say, this study and the in utero studies

previously mentioned cast doubt on the intelligence theories

of Jensen, Eysenek, Herrnstein, Shockley and others. Infant

19

A

education is the logical precursor to Headstart programs,

and both can be accomplished through a national system of

Day Care centers. Such a system would also provide jobs

and careers for many of the poor. However, the most com-

pelling reason for it is so there would no longer have to

be a "control group."

This brings us to the compensatory efforts which can

be undertaken by the regular public schools. As long as

schools are so clearly identifiable along social class lines,

money can be allocated to a school according to the socio-

economic status of its students. The lower the socioeconom-

ic status, the more money the school would receive - quite

the reverse of what now occurs. Guthrie and his colleagues

believe that publie support of education can best be based

on the needs of individual schools.41 This would be a per-

fectly logical procedure. the educational system

should not distribute its benefits in meager amounts to

those of meager abilities, anymore than the health system

should lavish its energies on the healthy. Justice demands

precisely the opposite."42 The additional money which

would accrue to poor schools under this system could be

used for such demonstrably salutary purposes as expanding

and upgrading the professional staff and the other school

service components referred to earlier. The money could

even be used for projects of such seemingly limited promise

as summer schools. (One study arrived at the conclusion

that 80 per cent of the achievement difference between black

and white students was due to differential growth over the

,43summer vacation.)

Determining financial support on a school-by-school

basis is not a satisfactory arrangement where schools have

heterogeneous student populations. In these cases, rich

students would be likely to recetve as much educational

service as poor students. The only answer here is to ap-

portion money on the basis of individual student needs.

This practice already has a history in the weighting for-

mulas for academic categories of students - e.g., kinder-

garten, vocational, secondary - and for dramatic handicap

categories - e.g., mentally retarded, blind, etc. Until

such time as careful diagnosis and re-diagnosis allow the

needs of other students to be better known, it will be neces-

sary to use the gross category of socioeconomic status.*

*Another category could be established for race, since in awhite dominated, racist society blacks are constantly con-fronted with situations that are fraught with psychological -even physical - damage. However, to put a price tag on thisplight could mock it or exacerbate it or both. What else isthere to say, except that reader responses are welcomed?

-21-

There would have to be safeguards, of course, to insure thatthe extra money allotted for lower socioeconomic status stu-dents was not diverted elsewhere. One very specific pro-posal in this regard is that poor families receive speciaastipends just to keep their working age children in school. 44

I am not prepared to say what the dollar amounts or

ratios should be for different social class categories ofstudents. I doubt that anyone can suggest these figures

with any confidence. This should not cause alarm, for whowould presume to say with authority what the figures shouldbe for the academic and handicap categories of students?

Human wisdom simply does not reach this fax, and yet figures,

however imperfect, do get arrived at, In New York City, theVlore Effective Schools program was spending an additional

030 per student. An economist has estimated the education-al value that different kinds of parents balng to children,and concluded that an additional $1300 a year should bespent on the education of nonwhite students to match the

parental service which white students receive. 45 Bemusedlooks are in ander.

The notdon of parental sarvice is itself a valid one.Children do learn from their parents. What and how muchthe children learn is a function of the parents' own level

22

-22-

of education. Some educators ham therefore urged that

education programs be developed for poorly educated parents."

In this way these parents will become more concerned and

helpful with their children's education. In a sense, then,

parent education would be compensatory for the parents and

preventive for their children. Whether the regular public

school is the beet agency to conduct parent education has

been questioned. . . . as a practical matter, if the

schools failed the parents as children, it is doubtful that

schools will now be able to help the parents teach their

children to learn."47 There are other agencies which may

be more congenial bo parents whcae memories of school are

bitter. The United Auto Workers has had success in up-

grading the reading skills of its less literate members.

Community organizations, including churches, could be pub-

licly subsidized to undertake efforts of this sort. Under-

standably, financial incentives will have to be offered to

parents if recruiting programs are to yield any kind of

results.

There are people who believe that compensatory educa-

tion is tantamount to pouring money down a rathole. The

cause-effect relationship they perceive is not that of

-23-

poverty breeding ignorance, but of ignorance producing

poverty. They contend that the primary consideration is

one of innate inferiority, and that, intellectually, some

groups halve just not been too well endowed genetically.

Thus, to offer compensatory education is to deny reality

and to fight a losingbattle. The first reply to these

people is to cite the successes which compensatory pro-

grams have had even though the funding has generally been

parsimonious. There is also a way in which these people',

very contentions can be used to allay any hidden fears they

may have for their own children's competitive headstart.

If compensatory education is merely intended to correct

for disadvantaged home environments. then rich children,

who are presumed to be genetically superior, will still have

this superiority as a competitive edge on poor children.

To return to the diagram of a while ago, the compensatory

education picture would look like this:

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY WITHCOMPENSATORY EDUCNTION

Climatic Endowment Home Environ. School Environ.

Rich XXX2DOMONNX xxxxxxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXX

Poor xxmc xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

24

-24-

If the people who espouse the genetic position are at all

fair-minded, they will have to at least allow poor kids the

limited equalization of compensatory education.

Integration

Social class segregation within sdhools and among schools

is itself a denial of equal opportunity, regardless of the

funds and facilities involved. The simple premise here is

that students learn from each other. Among the things they

learn are attitudes toward school. Students whose home

environments do not predispose them tmard formal education -

generally lower class students - can yet acquire academic

motivation from classmates who have it. They are deprived

of these classmates, however, by such devices as tracking

and the neighborhood school and the sdhool system whose

boundaries are coterminous with those of the municipality.

The deprivation is mutual, for there are many things of

value which the upper class student can learn from the lower

class student.48 Furthermore, the school has been aptly

idealized as the marketplace for ideas, the arena in whidh

a robust exchange of beliefs takes place. Homogeneity hard-

ly augurs well for the attainment of this ideal. It would

be more amusing if it were less appalling to watch students

25

-25-

in a ghettoized society being taught the values of pluralism

while they learn about other groups by reading books. Un-

fortunately, sdhools seem intent on having students learn

about other people as they learn about everything else -

on a secondhand basis. The Regents of New York State, in

a statement supporting school busing, have expressed the

matter well.

. . in a multiracial society, a per-son cannot be considered educated if heremains unexposed on a personal basisto the cultural richness and the indiv-idual diversity of his neighbors. Itis just as serious to deny a white dhildthe opportunity to know children of othercolors as it Is for minority childrento be denied contact with whites.49

James Coleman, director of the most elaborate research

yet undertaken on the effects of integrated education, in-

sists that

school integration . . is the mostconsistent mechanism for improving thequality of education of disadvantagedchildren. Integration alone reducesthe existing gap between black andwhite children by 30 per cent. All theother school factors together don't addup to nearly that mudh.30

Coleman has been faulted for the appropriateness of the

statistical methods by which he processed his data.51

The

dispute with Coleman, then, revolves around the question

26

of which is the more effective mechanism for improving

learning better school services or integration. Howelmr,

it need not be an either/or proposition, since both sides

agree that both approadhes have value. (Coleman has writ

ten the foreword to the Coons, Clune, and Sugarman book,

Private Wealth and Pdblic Education, which argues for

financial equalization rather than integration.) In fact,

equalizing educational expenditures and integrating schools

should prove to be reciprocally reinforcing processes. As

money becomes available to poor students, rich parents will

be less reluctant to have their children integrated with

these students. And integration itself assures more equal

distribution of education funds.

Coleman can be forgiven for so often speaking of blacks

and the disadvantaged as being synonymous, for it remains a

rhameful reality that "the racially isolated school is one

which is also isolated on the basis of economic status."52

It is also true that sdhool integration is almost always

thought of in terms of race and not social class. But ra

cial integration alone, as long overdue as that is with

America's pretensions, does not guarantee social class in

tegration of the schools. It may only succeed in bringing

-27-

together blacks and whites from different but equally poor

neighborhoods of the city. That would be a truncated vic-

tory for both groups. As Charles Silberman explains, "the

benefits of integration come almost entirely from the fact

that integrated schools tend to be middle class. Placing

black students in lower-class white schools does not help

their achievement at all."53

Lest one be concerned that there may not be enough

middle class schools to absofb poor blacks and poor whites,

she should know that the social class structure of the

United States is no longer pyramidal / now, in fact, there

is a big bulge in the middle. The problem is in finding

ways for those on the bottom to penetrate the hard under-

belly. One way has been Project Concern, a voluntary pro-

gram in Connecticut in which randomly selected students

from the black ghettos of four cities are bused to schools

in twenty-six sdburbs. The bused students gain 1.2 years

worth of reading skills in a four-month period, while the

control groups back in the ghettos fall farther behind the

national averages. The estimate is that the bused students

have a three times better chance of achieving well in read-

ing and arithmetic than the control groups. Coleman had

28

found that such programs do not depress the educational

achievement of the advantaged students, and the Project

Concern experience bears him out.54

As comnendable as Project Concern is, there is a ser.

ious flaw to voluntary programs which was made evident by

a case in New Jersey. A voluntary program there brought

fixst- and second-graders from Newark to the schools of

suburban verona. The students did significantly better in

reading, mathematics, and listening achievement than their

peers who continued in the Newark schools.55 Sadly and

incredibly, public opposition in Verona forced the termina-

tion of the program. Again, the educational achievement

of the advantaged students had not been depressed, so it

is difficult to fathom the fears that must have seized

the good people of Verona. Maybe it was the fact that the

program involved twenty-six little kids - a veritable in-

vasion:*

The Verona tragedy demonstrated the extreme vulnera.

bility of voluntary programs to community hysteria.

*There are reports that some of the Iferonans who most vo-ciferously opposed the program are teachers in the Newarkschools. If the residents of Newark know these reportsto be true, it can only have injected more venom into therelationship between them and the suburbanites who teachtheir children.

-29-

Mandatory programs, which are usually ordered by the courts

or by state education commissioners, have been restricted

to integration within already existing school districts.

Even so, similarly positive results have been reported for

these programs as for the voluntary programs. 56 The prob.

lem is that the white middle class flight from urban cen-

ters has meant that city school districts are rapidly run-

ning out of people to integrate with.

It was this situation which led to the Federal district

court directive that the school system of Richmond, Virginia,

be merged with the school systems of the surrounding counties

of Chesterfield and Henrico. The reasoning behind the direc-

tive was that if segregated schools are in violation of the

Constitution, so also are segregated school systems. As

the presiding judge, Robert Merhige, wisely reflected:

. school authorities may not con-stitutionally arrange an attendancezone system which serves only to re-produce in school facilities the preva-lent pattern of housing segregation.

. To do so is only to endorse withofficial approval the product of privateracism. 57

Just as the city's geographic borders,viewed as limits upon pupil assignment,do not correspond to any real physicalobstacles, so alsc are they unrelatedto any marked practical or administrativenecessities of school operation. The

30.

-30-

boundaries of Richmond are less thaneternal monuments to a city planner'svision.58

What Merhige did could have been done by the Virginia

state legislature, and done more democratically. In the in,

terest of economy, states have ordered the regionalization

of many school districts over the years. In the past twenty

years, the number of American school districts has been re-

duced from over 100,000 to only 17,000.59 Is it too much to

expect a state to compel consolidation in the interest of

equal rights? The answer, regrettably, is that it is.. Legis-

lators (and members of the executive branch) are too polit-

ically vulnerable to make a habit of putting principle before

popularity, especially with an issue as emotional as that of

integration. The best hope for principled action lies with

the long-tenured and life-tenured judges of the courts - a

melancholy commentary on representative government.

The Merhige ruling was also based on the concspt of de-

jure segregation - ehe fact that the schools of rirginia had

a history of legislated segregation. Without this history,

the situation in Virginia would presumably have been consti-

tutional. Frankly, the distinction is difficult to appreci-

ate. To quote from Justice Warren's majority opinion in the

-31-

Brown case:

To separate 51ack students/ from othersof similar age and qualifications solelybecause of their race generates a feelingof inferiority as to their status in thecommunity that may affect their hearts andminds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.Separate educational facilities are inher-ently unequal.6°

The important consideration, therefore, is the effect

of segregation, not the cause. If segregation is unconsti-

tutional because it is inherently unequal, then the causes

of that segregation in the public schools would appear to be

beside the point, or of secondary importance at best. Fed-

eral Judge Stephen Roth has declared that "if racial segre-

gation in our public schools is an evil, then it should make

no difference whether we classify it de jure or de facto.

Our objective, legally, should be to remedy a condition which

we believe needs correction." 61

Cases now pending in Texas seek to broaden the Supreme

Court's definition of segregation to include Cbicanos as well

as bl,Acks. Hopefully, this will bring the Court a step closer

to recognizing and acting against social class segregation in

the schools.

To return to the issue of de facto segregation. It is

encouraging to realize that the constitutionality of this is

fact becoming an academic issue. Recent court suits have

established the probability that all segregation in America

is of a de jars nature. As Judge Roth ruled concerning

school segregation in Detroit:

Governmental actions and inaction at alllevels - federal, state and local - havecombined with those of private organiza-tions, such as loaning institutions andreal estate associations and brokeragefirms, to establish and maintain

64the pat-

tern of residential segregation.

Judge Roth ordered for metropolitan Detroit the kind of school

consolidation which Judge Merhige ordered for the Richmond

area. Similar findings of de just segregation have appeared

in court rulings in Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Pasadena,

and Pontiac. As for social class segregation of a de jure

nature, the California Supreme Court, while concerning it.

self in the Serrano case more with school financing than

segregation, did say that

we find the case unusual in the extentto which governmental action is thecause of the wealth classifications.. . . such patterns are shaped andhardened by zoning ordinances and oth-er governmental land-use contigls whichpromote eolnomic exclusivity.'"

Two misgivings loom large at this point. First, that

the creation of new school districts to eliminate segregation

33

-.33-

may lead to the continual re-creation of districts as ethnic

and social class telances shift. Second, that integration

might produce such heterogeneous classroom populations that

nothing will occur but wasteful confusion.

The first concern assumes the prevalence of a situation

uthich, on the contrary, will have been markedly reduced by

integration, namely, the existence of ethnic and social class

enclaves to which the frightened can flee. To paraphrase

Joe Louis, those who would avoid the problems of the poor

and would avoid poor children thenmelves may still run, but

they'll have trouble hiding. To be sure, there will still

be parents who wiLl try to escape by burying their heads out

in the exutbs or by resorting to very parodhial private

schools or very private parochial schools. They are to be

pitied, for the loss will be to their children. And if

there are too many of them, a national commitment to inte-

gration could overtake them in time, anyway. This predica-

ment will insure greater population stability in school

districts. It would also be well te begin viewing school

districts more in population than geographic terms. This

wouad provide increased flexibility in making minor read-

justments in district compositions as they become necessary.

-34.

In an age of computers, the specific readjustments should

not be difficult to determine. They can be timed for natur-

al breaks in students ' careers, e.g. , the transition from

elementary school to junior high school, to minimize dis-

orientation.

The anxiety about a defeatingly heterogeneous class-

room population is really misplaced. It should be focused

on the conditions which obstruct success for heterogeneous

classes. Among these are large class sizes, self-contained

classrooms, one adult per class, uniform curricula and ma-

terials = in short, all the things that prevent individual-

ized instruction. Integration and its concomitant hetero-

geneity can compel the abandonment of these outworn educa-

tional practices. Smaller classes, nongraded classes,

departmentalization, team teaching, paraprofessionals, a

wide array of materials, schools without walls are some of

the advances that might accrue to a school system because

of integration. It has been reported that the integration

plan in Mobile, Alabama, was made more acceptable to the

public by the school superintendent's decision to use it as an

opportunity to introduce other reforms such as individualized

instruction.64

Z.35

-35-

Butsing

Integration meansbusing. To endorse integration wthiLe

rejecting busing is to say that the goal is worthwhile but

the only effective means is unacceptable. This is where

President Nixon ended up ualen he said that "desegregation

must go forward until the goal of genuinely equal education.

al opportunity is achieved," at the same time that he pro-

posed legislation which would "call an immediate halt to all

new busing orders by Federal courts. 8865It was left to a

Southern governor, Reubin Askew of Florida, to draw the is-

sue incisively and courageously.

I don't like busing, but we've got tobreak the cycle of black poverty. Wecan't afford to isolate and not utilize12 per cent of our people. No largecorporation would do it."The way to end Imising is to seek thebroader community desegregation whichwill make it unnecessary In themeantime, we must decide which is worse -temporary hardship and inconvenience, orcontinuing inequality and injustice.°

Askew is clearly an exception to the pessimism about elected

officials wtach was registered earlier in this paper. The

only gratuitous word in his statement is the word black in

the first sentence.

Most Americans still indicate a determination to have

36

it both way, however. The latest poll taken by the Nation-

al Opinion Research Center shows that 75 per cent of white

Americans suppo.ut school integration. 68 The latest Gallup

poll, taken more recently, puts the figure at 66 per cent.69

79 per cent of the Floridians, blatclk and white, who voted on

the integration referendum on March 14 voted in support of

integrated education. 70The Gallup poll and the Florida

vote also measured attitudes toward busing. The former re-

vealed that 69 per cent of white Americans are opposed to

busing. The latter indicated that 74 per cent of the voting

Floridians oppose Inning.

The most pertinent comment on poll results was that

made by Andrew Greeley and Paul Sheatsley of the National

Opinion Research Center. . attitudes are not neces-

sarily predictive of behavior . . . but one can see them as

a sign of progress and as creating an environment for effec-

tive social reform."71 Where there are conflicting signs,

however, political leaders have to decide which of the signs

is progressive and which reactionary. Or they have to de-

cide which of the signs has greater electoral significance.

Richard Nixon, HUbert Humphrey, and Nelson Rockefeller - all

politically desperate and dangerous men - made their decisions

37

-37-

on the second basis, and on that basis they undoubtedly

chose correctly. In so doing, however, they did not act as

leaders but as craven lackeys of popular fears and preju-

dice. The opportunity to appeal to the decent instinct of

Americans, which are reflected in the polls, was let pass

for the sake of cheap political gain.

The hubbub over busing might suggest to a foreigner

just arrived in America for the first time that yellow buses

are lethal instruments, and too mudh exposure to them can

cause cancer. She would then have to reconcile this impres-

sion with the fact that about 40 per cent of American stu-

dents are bused, withonly about 3 per cent being bused for

purposes of integration.72

In Charlotte, North Carolina,

the city which last April produced the Supreme Court ruling

that busing was an acceptable tool with which to accomplish

court-ordered integration, the number of bused students only

rose from a previous total of 46,076 to 46,849.73 Even in

the Richmond area, where Judge Merhige's consolidation direc-

tive is to take effect, 68,000 students are already being

bused and consolidation w111 only increase this number by

10,000. 74 Many students who walk to school spend more time

-38-

getting there than students who are bused. The hazards they

encounter along the way are as great as the dire perils which

are supposed to confront students on buses.

It would be well at this point to consider the attitudes

of blacks toward busing. The Gallup poll and the Florida

referendum indicate that most blacks are not opposed to busing.

Added to this is the fact that the leaders of the Southern

Christian Leadership Conference, the NAACP, the National

Urban Coalition, the National Council of Negro Wo-

men, the A. Philip Randolph Institute, and the Urban League

requested a meeting to dissuade Nixon from his anti-busing

position.75 The National Black Political Convention has gen-

erally been reported as having opposed busing. However,

Richard Hatcher, one of the convention leaders and mayor of

the host city, Gary, Indiana, has challenged the reportage

on the convention. He cites the following convention resolu-

tion as evidence that the convention did not take a hard

stand against busing.

Let us further resolve that this con-vention oppose busing in instanceswhere it serves as an instrument ofdestruction of quality education inblack communities and that this con-vention support busing in cases whereit serves the end 9f equal educationfor black people.7°

-39-

Still, among blacks there is considerable and growing

opposition to busing. (One source has estimated that as

much as 4o per cent of the black vote in the Florida refer-

endum was opposed to busing.)77 Unlike the white opposition

to busing, the black opposition is more forthrightly a dis-

avowal of integration itself. Roy Innis of the Congress of

Racial Equality rejects the "subtle implication that blacks

cannot learn unless in the presence of whites."78 William

Raspberry, the black columnist, elaborates on this.

. let us end the humiliation ofchasing after rich white children.And it is humiliating. For one thing,it says to black children that thereis something inherently wrong withthem, something that can be cured onlyby the presence of white children.Some of us don't believe that. Someof us believe that given adequate re-sources, financial and otherwise, blackchildren can learn, no matter whaA col-or their seatmEttes happen to be.(7

Raspberry could easily find a lot of whites who would be

eager to provide those adequate resources as a means of fore-

stalling integration. Nixon himself is rather stingy in this

regard, offering to equalize educational opportunity with

only 2.5 billion dollars of previously appropriated or re-

quested money.

40

Other blacks also say that Coleman is wrong, and they

aim to prove it by strengthening the self-images of black

students thr.ough projects such as Newark's African Free

School. They can refer to a three-year study of integra-

tion in the Evanston, Illinois, schools to show that inte-

gration was damaging to the self-esteem of black eighth-

grade boys.8° They, and white separatists as well, can

point to the study of 700 high schools done by the Syracuse

University Research Corporation which found that classroom

disruption was positively related to integration.81

There is an ironic counterpoint to this last study,

which was done two years ago. The Coleman data of six

years ago show that integrated schooling leads to substan-

tial improvement in racial attitudes among students." The

five-year-old report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,

Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, points out that in-

tegration is most likely to be favored by adults, black and

white, who grew up in integrated situations.83 Apparently,

the effect of integrated schooling on students' racial at-

titudes is a good deal more positive when there are not a

lot of adults and politicians around to poison the atmos-

phere. Given such an atmosphere, the present disruption in

-41-

high schools is not surprising. One can hope that it will

turn out to be but a brief transition to genuine integration.

Continued separation will only intensify the hate and dis-

trust and fear that exist on both sides, and that puts all

of us in a perilous state mentally and morally.

Since I so strongly support busing as a necessary means

to a desired end, it behooves me to give a further demon-

stration of its logistical feasibility, regardless of the

current political climate. How expensive and burdensom

busing will be depends on how many get bused how far. This

brings up the relevant unit for integration. As Judges

Merhige and Roth have directed, this should be the metropoli-

tan region, i.e., the central city and its suburbs. This

unit is large enough to cover a wide spectrum of ethnic

groups and all social classes, without being so large as to

be impractical. Out of such a unit, several representative

school districts could be created, most likely by simply

dividing the area into so many pie-shaped wedges. Theodore

Lowi, a political scientist at the University of Chicago,

has plotted such school districts for metropolitan Chicago

in a way that limits the one-way commuting distance to less

than twenty miles and the time to about thirty to forty

4? .

I

-42--

minutes." These figures are higher than they need be,

since Lowi does not think in terms of cross-busing, which

he should insofar as the benefits of integration do not

redound to one party alone. If the districts can be kept

this compact for metropolitan Chicago, most other urban

areas should be able to do still better. And that would

mean that kids would not be getting bused all over kingdom

come, as George Wallace likes to put it.

For a city which borders on the state line, it may be

necessary to create an interstate school district. A recent

map in the New York Times showed the racial patterns for

Bergen County, Neld Jersey, which is immediately west and

northwest of Manhattan. The nap was startlingly monochro-

matic. Had the map shown income patterns, the single color

might have been green, for Bergen County is not a depressed

area. Thus, parts of Bergen County and Manhattan could be

merged into a single ethnically and economically integrated

school district. A precedent for this kind of interstate

operation already exists, and interestingly enough it has

to do with transportation. I am, of course, referring to

the Port of New York Authority. It would obviously be a

better way for the kids in Bergen County to learn about

43

-43-

blacks and Puerto Ricans than to go field tripping into

Manhattan to see Purlie or a revival of West Side Story.

No matter how carefully planned the integrated districts

are, some parents are still going to object to the length of

the bus ride. They will say that it makes their children's

school day unreasonably protracted. Since the duration of

the bus ride will be difficult to shorten, the only answer

is to shorten the length of time kids spend in school. This

should raise no greater hue and cry than it has where schools

have gone on split sessions because of overcrowding. It may

also be possible to conduct some learning activities on the

bus. After all, Adelphi University has even managed to do

this with commuting businessmen on the Long Island Railroad.

A ploy to which opponents of busing still resort is to

say that we should wait until residential integration makes

school redistricting unnecessary. Since residential integra-

tion is darting uphill like molasses in January - it may even

be darting downhill - this position certainly seems disingen-

uous. It also ignores the fact that school integration will

remove a major inducement to residential segregation, of

both a racial and class nature. Finally, it overlooks the

practical reality that children accept integration better

44

-44.

than adults. Thus, it is not a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum:

priority should be given to school integration.*

A final consideration relative to busing and integration.

The abolition of the neighborhood school necessitates a re-

definition of community control. The community should now

be the school itself - parents, students, and staff. To be

sure, there will be standards imposed from some remote central

source, but hopefully these will be minimal and wise. The

rest will be left to the collective judgment of the three

parties most directly involved in the school. For all of

these parties, this will mean more power and responsibility

and opportunity than they have heretofore knydn. For all of

them, it will also mean more education.

Conclusion

There is no better way to end this paper than with a

statement from someone who has fought the battle long and

well. In this case, that someone is Theodore Hesburgh,

*This is not intended to de-emphasize the fight for residen-tial integration. There are some promising developments inthat direction, among which are the new HUD guidelines whichbar the conccntr,it:%on oE public housing in inner cities andGeorge Romney's promotion of housing allowances for the poor.135There have also been several successful court challenges torestrictive zoning ordinances. Finally, Senator AbrahamRibicoff is pushing a bill which would prevent any Federalinstallation from moving to a community which refused toprovide land for workers' housing. 86 Similar bills could beintroduced th state legislatures.

45

chairman of the U.d. Commission on Civil Rights.

If we are to emerge from our presentstate of inequality, it will not beby insisting on minimum compliancewith mindmum laws. Generosity, mag-nanimity and human understanding willalone allow us to transcend, in ourday, our gsmal history of racial in-equality.uf

ilMI

-46-

Notes

1William N. Greenbaum, "Serrano V. Priest: Implicationsfor Educational Equality," Hazvard Educational Review, XLI(4) , November, 1971, 501.

2uTale of Two Schools," New York Times editorial, De-cember 25, 1971, p. 16. A book which extensively documentssuch inequalities is John E. Coons, William H. Clune III,and Stephen D. Sugarman, Private Wealth and Public Education(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971).

3Tom Wicker, "Resurrecting the Riles Report," New York

Times , November 8, 1970, p. E-13.

4New Jersey Education Association, Basic StatisticalData of New Jersey School Districts (Trenton, 1971) , p. 23.

5James Bryant Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 2-3.

6Greenbaum, 508.

7Gene I. Maeroff, "School Districts: Why They Are In-herently Unequal," New York Times, September 5, 1971, p. E-7.

8New Jersey Education Association, p. 23.

9Greenbaum, 508.

10New Jersey Education Association, p. 23.

11Greenbaum, 512.

12Ibid., 514.

13Patricia Cayo Sexton, Education and Income (New York:The Viking Prers, 1964).

"This has been so often demonstrated that it is almosta trusim. Recent documentation is provided by Richard Roth-stein, "Down the Up Staircase: Tracking in Schools," ThisMagazine is about Schools, V (3), Summer, 1971, 103-140; and

47

-47-

Walter E. Schaefer, Carol Olexa, and Kenneth Polk, "Pro-grammed for Social Class: Tracking in High School," Trans-action, October, 1970, pp. 39-46.

15Hobson v.16James W.

Hansen (D.D.C. 1967) 269 F.Supp. 401, 437.

Guthrie et al., Scla).2 (Cam.-bridge: The MIT Press, 1971).

17Ibid., P. 55.

zqual Rights to Learn," New York Tines editorial,September 2, 19718 p. 32.

19Arthur E. Wise, "The California Doctrines" SaturdayReview, November 20, 1971, p. 83.

2°Ibid.

21-John Herbers, "School Financing by States Urged inFederal Study," New York Times, March 7, 1972, pp. 1, 19.

22Albert Shanker, "Where Tye Stand," New York Times,October 10, 19718 p. E-11.

23Hugh Calkins, "Financing Education in the 70s,"Today 's Education, February,, 19718 p . 31 .

"Milton J. Shapp, "An Education Trust Fund," New YorkTimes, October 30, 1971, p. 31.

25"1111H, McGovern Blast Nixon," Now Brunswick (N.J.) HomeNews, March 218 1972, p. 1.

26John Herbers, "School Financing: A New Way to Foot theBill," New York Times, March 12, 1972, p. E-3.

27Diane Ravitch, "Community Control Revisited," Corn-mentary, LII (2) , February, 19728 74.

28Greenbaum, 524.

-48-

29Robinson v. State of New Jersey, Superior Court ofNew Jersey, L-18704-69 (1972), pp. 63-64.

30Herbers, "School Financing: A New Way to Foot theBill."

31Robinson v. State of Neld Jersey, p. 64.

32Guthrie, p. 128; Philip Meranto, School Politics in

the Metropolis (Columbus, 0.: Charles E. Merrill PublishingCo., 1970), pp. 32, 97; Milton Schwebel, Who Can Be Educated?(Naw York: Grove Press, 1968), p. 4; Arthur E. Wise andMichael E. Manley-Casimir, "Law, Freedom, Equality - andSchooling," Freedom, Bureaucracy, and Schooling, ed. VernonF. Haubrich (ftearlgton: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development, 1971), p. 60.

33Tom Wicker, "Equalizing the Schools," New York Times,

March 12, 1972, p. E-11.

34Robert S. Nathan, "Messiah of the Ed Schools," Change,

October, 1971, p. 53.

35Sexton, p. 17.

36Schwebel, p. 154.

37Jacques Barzun, The House of Intellect (Nw York:

Harper and Row, 1959), p. 142.

38Sally Bould Van Til and Jon Van Till "The Lower Class

and the Future of Inequality," Paper presented at the meet.ings of the American Sociological Association, Denver,August, 1971, p. 16.

39R. F. Harrell, E. Woodyyard, and A. I. Gates, TheEffect of Mothers' Diets on the Intelligence of Offspring(New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Colum-bia University, 1955), as cited in Schwebel, p. 111. Asource which thoroughly examines the relationships betweenhealth, nutrition and school failure is Herbert G. Birchand Joan D. Gussow, Disadvantaged Children (New York: Har-court, Brace and World, 1970.)

49

-49-

40"Headstart Plus," The New Republic, September 11,1971, p. 10; and "Nurturing Intelligence," Time, January 3,1972, pp. 56-57.41Guthrie, p. 153.42Thomas F. Green, "Two Theories of Equal Opportunity,"

Typescript of excerpts from a paper delivered to the Philos-ophy of Education Socis ty, Dallas, April 6, 1971, p. 12.

43Center for Education Policy Research, pre_lia_zninarReport to the Carnegie Foundation (Cambridge, CEPR, 1970) .

"Lewis C. Solomon, "Stop Trying to Make Equal Educa-tion," National Review, October 8, 1971, pp. 1107-1108.

45Dennis J. Dugan, "The Impact of Parental and Educa-tional Investments upon Student Achievement," Social Sta-tistics Section, Proceedings of the American StatisticalAssociation, 1969, as cited in Guthrie, pp. 142-144.

"Daniel and Laurel N. Tanner, "Parent Education andCultural Inheritance," School and Society, XCIX (2330),January, 1971, pp. 21-24.

47Paul R. Dimond, "Toward a Children's Defense Fund,"Harvard Educational Review, XLI (3), August, 1971, 391.

48For a discussion of thelower class children have, seeally Deprived Child (New York:73, 80.

positive qualities whichFrank Riessman, The Cultur-Harper and Row, 1962), pp.

4911Parts of Regents' Statement and Dissents," New YorkTimes, March 25, 1972, p. 20.

50Jack Rosenthal, "School Expert Calls IntegrationVital Aid," New York Times, March 9, 1970, pp. 1, 26.

51Samuel S. Bowles and Henry M. Levin, "The Determi-nants of Scholastic Achievement: An Appraisal of Some RecentFindings," Journal of Human Resources, III, Winter, 1968.

-50-

52

Summary of Report, "Racial and Social Class Isolationin the Schools," (Albany, N.Y.: State Department ofEducation, 1969), p. 4.

53

Charles Silberman, Crisis in the Cllssroom (NewYcxek: Random House, 1970), p. 74.

54a,h1

"The Agony of Busing Moves North," Time, November15, 1971, p. 63; and Richard J. Margolis, "Busing: 'YouGot Some Nice Things Here, Too'," New York a...mes, October 24,1971, p. E-10.

55

Stanley M. Zdep, "Evaluation of the Verona Plan forSharing Educational Opportunity," Research at ETS: Projectsand Publications (Princeton: Educational Testing Service,1970), p. 80.

56

James S. Coleman et al., Eouality of EducationalOpportunity (Washington: United States Government PrintingOffice, 1966) is still the best source of data on this,See also "Busing: An America Dilemma," Newsweek, March 13,1972, p. 23, for a discussion of the three-year study inEvanston, Illinois.

57

Tom Wicker, "Cataclysm in Richmond," New York Times,January 13, 1972, p. 41.

58Ben A. Franklin, "U.S. Judge Orders Schools Merged in

Richmond Area," new York Times, January 11, 1972, pp. 1, 19.59Fred M. Hechinger, "Some Old Friends Are Dropping by

the Wayside," New York Times, September 5, 1971, p. E-1.60Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka," U.S SuPreme

Court Reports, 98 L ed 880.61

24."Attack on Iht. Facto," Time, October 11, 1971, pp. 23-

62Ibid.

63Greenbaum, 517.

51

-51-

6411The Agony of Busing Moves North, " p. 60.

65"Text of Nixon"s Statement on Education andNew York Times, March 17, 1972, p. 72.

66Jon Nordheimer, "Florida's 'Supersquare' -Watch, " New York Times Magazine, March 5, 1972,

Busing, "

A Man top. 56.

67Reubin Askew, "Temporary Hardship or ContinuingInjustice?" Integrated Education, X (1), January-February,1972, p. 5. The article was excerpted from an addresswhich Askew delivered to the Florida PTA Congress.

68Andrew M. Greeley and Paul B. Sheatsley, "AttitudesToward Racial Integration, " _ssiffati f , ccxxv(6), December, 1971, 14.

69,'Busing: An American Dilemma, " p. 24.

7011Retreat From Integration, " Time, March 27, 1972,p. 21.

71Greeley and Sheatsley, p, 19.

72 nThe Agony of Busing Moves North, " p. 57, "Busing:An American Dilemma, " p. 20; Theodore M. Hesburgh, "It's

the End of the Bus Ride That Matters, " New York Times,September 15, 1971, p. 47.

73Anthony Lewis, "Constitutional Crisis: I, " New York

=DA, March 25, 1972, p. 31.

74"The Busing Issue Boils Over, Time, February 28,

1972, p. 14.

75John Herbera, "Rights Leaders Ask Nixon to See Themon Busing Decision, " New York Times, March 14, 1972, p. 45.

76"Hatcher Reviews Parley of Blacks, " New York Times,

March 16, 1972, p 34.

77"Retreat From Integration."

52

52 -

78"Busings An American Dilemma," p. 21.

79QUoted with relish by James J. h.ilpatrick,servative columnist, in "Humiliating Integration,Brunswick (N.J.) Home News, February 12, 1972, p.

80"Busing: An American Dilemma," p. 23.

81"The Agony of Eusing Moves North," p. 63.

821qichael B. Katz, "The Present Novement in EducationalReform," Harvard Educational Review, XLI (3), August, 1971,350.

the con-" New

4.

831ieranto, p. 144.

84Theordore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism (hew York:W. 4. horton, 1969), pp. 277-278.

85Joseph Kraft, "The Coming Apart of Fortress Suburbia,"New York, January 31, 1972, p. 27.

86Linda and Paul Davidoff and Neill N. Gold, "The 6uburbsHave to Open Their Gates," New York Times hagazine, ivovember7, 1971, p. 50.

87Hesburgh.

53